Class Action Lawsuit against Blizzard.

[Adam Jensen]

WTF.

Authenticators are $6 for the keychain and free for the phone. What a stupid waste of a judge's time.

[Camnorick]

Lawsuits only get thrown out, not because its a dumb lawsuit or the plaintiff has no chance of winning. They only get thrown out if you actually can't sue for the issue. A multi-billion corp having a known security issue with the only fix being an post-retail purchase. It doesn't matter how much Blizzard has done to solve the problem, the problem still exists, most people have to buy the fix and they will have to go to court and defend themselves. Blizzard could spend a couple million in court cost's for the next year or two, but they will probably settle for just enough to cover the lawyer costs of the plaintiff, with no admission of wrong doing. I think Blizzard has done as good as a job a MMO could do against hackers, but people still get hacked and they are still selling the auth.

I'm willing to bet Activison/Blizzard has over 100 ongoing suits against them. It means nothing except the cost of doing business.

[Deleted]

Lawsuits only get thrown out, not because its a dumb lawsuit or the plaintiff has no chance of winning. They only get thrown out if you actually can't sue for the issue. A multi-billion corp having a known security issue with the only fix being an post-retail purchase. It doesn't matter how much Blizzard has done to solve the problem, the problem still exists, most people have to buy the fix and they will have to go to court and defend themselves. .

the fact is the authenticator isn't a fix with their security, it is a fix for your personal security, as I've said before it's basically the same as demanding every firm who you access online provides you with a virus scan, it's protection for your end, it's not protection for their end.

[Rivellana]

That my friend is just piss poor customer service. They deserve the failure they got.

Also why I've not named the game or company I was referring to, at the risk of causing argument with forum goers. Although I'm sure some people know which one I'm referring to.

[alturic]

Lawsuits only get thrown out, not because its a dumb lawsuit or the plaintiff has no chance of winning. They only get thrown out if you actually can't sue for the issue. A multi-billion corp having a known security issue with the only fix being an post-retail purchase. It doesn't matter how much Blizzard has done to solve the problem, the problem still exists, most people have to buy the fix and they will have to go to court and defend themselves. Blizzard could spend a couple million in court cost's for the next year or two, but they will probably settle for just enough to cover the lawyer costs of the plaintiff, with no admission of wrong doing. I think Blizzard has done as good as a job a MMO could do against hackers, but people still get hacked and they are still selling the auth.

I'm willing to bet Activison/Blizzard has over 100 ongoing suits against them. It means nothing except the cost of doing business.

I find it rather odd (not disagreeing with you) that lawsuits ONLY get thrown out if you can't sue for the issue. I mean, I have no clue how the legal process works, but wouldn't a lawyer know that "well John, we really shouldn't even file this considering you can't actually sue someone for X issue" instead of "ahh hell John, you can't really sue someone over this, but we'll submit the paperwork anyway to see if it can slip by"?

I still can't fathom people thinking there's something Blizzard can do to prevent people from using stupid passwords, one email for everything, etc. What people are saying is that the same thing happens to every other company, but because Blizzard has 10 million people using WoW it's a design flaw to them, and them alone because they CAN fix it.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but it sounds like you are saying nothing more than "People are dumb. Blizzard knows this. Blizzard sells an authenticator that they most likely (haven't seen hard numbers on their manufacturing deal) make little to no money on. Blizzard is in the wrong because they are "preying" on the illiterate to make little to no money on a product that protects them 100% of the time."?

It surely sounds like that is exactly what you are saying and if Blizzard dropped the authenticator options (yes, completely did away with it) there wouldn't be an issue at all in terms of sueing a company because >YOU< and you alone have shitty security?

Note: When I say >YOU<, I'm not referring to Camnorick.

---------- Post added 2012-11-10 at 10:59 AM ----------

the fact is the authenticator isn't a fix with their security, it is a fix for your personal security, as I've said before it's basically the same as demanding every firm who you access online provides you with a virus scan, it's protection for your end, it's not protection for their end.

That's what people don't realize. Blizzard has not, ever have a security flaw (notice I say security flaw because the reports of people calling up saying they lost authenticator and jumping through hoops to send fake info to get the authenticators off the account are not hacks) that any other company hasn't had to deal with at any given point in their history as well.

People need to realize that security of their digital information stops with them.

[Kevyne-Shandris]

A lawsuit thread on a fanboi forum isn't going to be very unbiased and fair with opinions...that's for sure!

But seriously the lawsuit does have a point, and one that I am glad being pointed out, that the authenticators should be a requirement to play the game and included (in the box or downloadable).

This game has too many compromised accounts, and one less headache in operating the game is good business sense. Certainly more than paying to defend against this lawsuit.

[Faroth]

From the article:

Blizzard puts the onus on gamers to buy additional products or tighten security on their devices, rather than making customer accounts more secure, Bell claims.

I work for a company that supplies material to Lockheed Martin. Yes, that Lockheed Martin. Lockheed REQUIRES us to have an authenticator to log into their portal, which they supply but they have to approve our company and the individual user requesting access before they'll supply it. It has a couple more digits than Blizzard's.

It makes me laugh that someone is claiming Blizzard makes the authenticator to force customers to tighten security rather than Blizzard basically "just fixing it so it's secure."

I really wish class action lawsuits could result in penalties against the plaintiff for filing ridiculous claims and wasting tax payer dollars in the courts.

Why don't they simply include them in the box? That suggests they should supply 10 million players with up to 5 authenticators each if one were included in each expansion's box.

An alternative solution would be to simply question why they don't offer the physical one for free...except they basically do. It appears they charge for the authenticator and ship for free. In actuality it could be seen that they charge a flat rate shipping fee and send free authenticators.

[alturic]

A lawsuit thread on a fanboi forum isn't going to be very unbiased and fair with opinions...that's for sure!

But seriously the lawsuit does have a point, and one that I am glad being pointed out, that the authenticators should be a requirement to play the game and included (in the box or downloadable).

This game has too many compromised accounts, and one less headache in operating the game is good business sense. Certainly more than paying to defend against this lawsuit.

So, I guess my point stands? Peoples own security failures are a result of Blizzards success? I can't comprehend how people think that just because something is a target of account hacking the company selling the product that is a success (otherwise the account hacking issue wouldn't even be talked about) is required to provide some sort of additional (see: not common, considering NO, I repeat NO other online business, not even banks provide for free, at least in the US) security measure at their expense.

[Kevyne-Shandris]

I work for a company that supplies material to Lockheed Martin. Yes, that Lockheed Martin. Lockheed REQUIRES us to have an authenticator to log into their portal, which they supply but they have to approve our company and the individual user requesting access before they'll supply it. It has a couple more digits than Blizzard's.

It makes me laugh that someone is claiming Blizzard makes the authenticator to force customers to tighten security rather than Blizzard basically "just fixing it so it's secure."

I really wish class action lawsuits could result in penalties against the plaintiff for filing ridiculous claims and wasting tax payer dollars in the courts.

Well, this lawsuit wouldn't have existed if like Lockheed Martin did, require those doing business with them to use an authenticator.

That it's taking a lawsuit for possibly a light to go off in the heads at Blizzard HQ, that IS the problem.

[Lochton]

Law companies generally don't take or pursue cases if they don't think there is a reasonabe chance of winning.

So it'll be interesting to see how this turns out anyhow. This might mean that in the future Blizzard might have to add the authenticator to purchase of their retail games. (Or ship it for free to people that purchase digital copies).

I can go as low as allow it to be in the retail version, but if you buy it digital, then you get the app or pay for the thing. This ain't kindergarden.

[alturic]

Law companies generally don't take or pursue cases if they don't think there is a reasonabe chance of winning.

So it'll be interesting to see how this turns out anyhow. This might mean that in the future Blizzard might have to add the authenticator to purchase of their retail games. (Or ship it for free to people that purchase digital copies).

Or, it could simply mean they say "haha fuck you, we'll just stop offering them" and be free and clear. I don't think the problem is that their success of a game that is a target of hackers requires more security because people can't handle it on their own. I think the problem (in the plaintiffs eyes somehow) is that Blizzard is charging for that extra security that he can't provide on his own.

Do people not realize that most major (see: national) bank in the US doesn't even offer authenticators for most consumer accounts? For free OR paid?

[tripleh]

If this goes threw and the guy wins. You can bet that others would join in to get a piece of blizzard if it means cash in there pocket. Sony got hacked and ended up giving away free in game items to some of its games along with free game time. Usually in cases like this the companys that loose set up a retainer and any players that contact the plantiffs attorney's would end up getting a set amount from the retainer.

[alturic]

I can go as low as allow it to be in the retail version, but if you buy it digital, then you get the app or pay for the thing. This ain't kindergarden.

I can guarantee you 100% that if they start shipping authenticators with retail copies... wait for it... the price goes up $6 and then people will bitch and moan again.

[Aqua]

If Blizzard do everything mortally possible to protect their data then sorry but this case is a bust from the get go.

And unless you want to go around to all places of the world, kidnap every account hacker. Then there's really not alot you can do. The Authenticator isn't flawless either, it's just added layers if you feel it is a threat, Blizzard can easily recover your account after phone call but I don't believe for one second they're all scratching their behinds and saying 'well garsh, them hackers keep gettin in, guess we'd better sit here and think s'more'. Come on.

There's asking for more, and there is combating the impossible, and technology is a writhing ever evolving mass blob thing at the moment. No court will rule in their favor as there's nothing concrete to prove everything on their end isn't being followed through on.
The Authenticator is a choice on your end. And if you have a phone that can run it, free also. Or they give you options to use the call/text-in service. So... yeah I think anyone can tell this is crap.

[Lochton]

A lawsuit thread on a fanboi forum isn't going to be very unbiased and fair with opinions...that's for sure!

But seriously the lawsuit does have a point, and one that I am glad being pointed out, that the authenticators should be a requirement to play the game and included (in the box or downloadable).

This game has too many compromised accounts, and one less headache in operating the game is good business sense. Certainly more than paying to defend against this lawsuit.

But, the compromised accounts is mostly because the user doesn't take care of his/her system. If they in court demand a firm to use the authenticators... Does this mean that I need an authenticator to go to the ATM? (And this is a good point, because it's the same limit on standard procedure (card = username and then you press your password). Your card and code can be copied / stolen too.

[Kevyne-Shandris]

So, I guess my point stands? Peoples own security failures are a result of Blizzards success? I can't comprehend how people think that just because something is a target of account hacking the company selling the product that is a success (otherwise the account hacking issue wouldn't even be talked about) is required to provide some sort of additional (see: not common, considering NO, I repeat NO other online business, not even banks provide for free, at least in the US) security measure at their expense.

All of this is just pointless, because the authenticator isn't required.

Blizzard basically is selling a game and letting folks use it without even a login password for their account. That's what basically what it comes down to for account security.

The individual would have to be responsible to apply the authenticator, but Blizzard is responsible to supply it at the very start of creating an account.

The ball was dropped in the chain of basic security -- players can't make an authenticator itself and new players wouldn't know anything about it (it's not listed as something to get on the box, anyway).

Blizzard is at fault for not requiring it, and not providing an easy way to know about it and to obtain it.

[Lochton]

I can guarantee you 100% that if they start shipping authenticators with retail copies... wait for it... the price goes up $6 and then people will bitch and moan again.

That is why they shouldn't do it, hence I said "go as low". The authenticator is optional and helps you, buy it and be happy or don't. In the end the standard system is more than fine, the average person just doesn't treat his/her computer right.

[salamala]

At first I was for this guy's lawsuit, but thinking about it for a while and I now do agree with most here that it is a wrongful suit. Basically it's like buying a car, an alarm is optional - you can buy one and have extra protection - or not and risk getting it stolen. I guess I see this exactly the same... they offer it you can buy it or can pass, your choice. It's almost like Blizzard is being sued for the nature of the world and that there are people out there everywhere trying to make a buck off your stuff.

The only problem with my analogy is that with a car you can buy an alarm from a 3rd party - you don't have to go with the manufacture's alarm only.. where as with Blizzard you cannot. The nature of their system is that if you want this protection you have to buy it from them directly < That part i'm not sure about the legality of (monopoly)?

[saleitem]

considering authenticators are "optional" and you do not have to purchase one... i see this going absolutely no where.

[Lochton]

All of this is just pointless, because the authenticator isn't required.

Blizzard basically is selling a game and letting folks use it without even a login password for their account. That's what basically what it comes down to for account security.

The individual would have to be responsible to apply the authenticator, but Blizzard is responsible to supply it at the very start of creating an account.

The ball was dropped in the chain of basic security -- players can't make an authenticator itself and new players wouldn't know anything about it (it's not listed as something to get on the box, anyway).

Blizzard is at fault for not requiring it, and not providing an easy way to know about it and to obtain it.

No, but it's advertised online, as well as some boxes actually have a piece of paper lying inside saying "Remember you can order or download an authenticator for extra security" - And you can't claim no, because I'm looking at it right now.